Did we really go to the moon in the late 1960's and early 1970's? It is a debatable question. In any case, there are enough doubts one can raise against the moon-landing theories. Here are some of those listed. Read and decide, did we really go to the moon? After reading this, post your comments below.

First of all, keep this in mind -- NASA says, no artificial light had been taken to the moon and all the pictures were taken using natural light (Sunlight and the light from the earth). Now go ahead.....

Anomalies

This is a picture that shows some anomaly. The reflection on the moon is estimated at 7% and therefore the golden side of the Lunar Module which is not facing the sun should have been blackened out in the shadows. Even a kid knows, this much detail on the golden side is impossible. NASA might say that the light reflected from the other parts and from the bright spacesuit lit up this particular portion.

PIC 1

Here is another example of the said case. It is obvious that an artificial light source was used to make the shot clearer. But NASA says it didn't. In this picture, a greyish portion is clearly visible at the right hand top of the picture. According to NASA, this image also was lit up brightly, due to the reflection on the surface of the moon.

PIC 2

Here is a close-up of Aldrin's boot. From the bright spot on the boot, it is apparent that an artificial light source was used. But as said before, NASA says this was lit up by reflection on the surface of the moon.

PIC 3

Take a look at this photograph. If there was a great deal of reflection on the surface of the moon, then why the side facing the shadow is black? We saw earlier, how a greying portion was clearly lit up by the 'natural reflection'.

PIC 4

See the next picture for a very good example of the ideal state. This is a photograph used to explain the glares in this particular photograph (The two bright blobs on the left). The explanation for the blobs is that they are caused by bright light shining into the lens and reflecting off its interior and then down onto the film. Since there is no artificial light used on the moon, naturally the mentioned bright light must have been that from the sun. But take a look at the astronaut and the vehicle. It is not brightly lit up! We saw the official explanation of the picture details on the shadow side in some pictures. If it was bright light, that coused the blobs, then why didn't the same light lit up the astronaut and vehicle as in the previous cases.

PIC 5

This is another example. In this picture also, there is only an understandable amount of reflection. Why wasn't this picture also brightly lit up like the previous photos?

PIC 6

Next is the very famous picture of Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin saluting the American flag. On the right side of the lunar module, everything 'except' the American flag is in the shadow. Even the legs of Aldrin is not as bright! How can you explain the effect of light a maxium near the flag on the module and a minimum on the legs of Aldrin who should have been more lit up? Remember, it is the same bright suit that is capable of reflecting a lot of light that he is still wearing!

PIC 7

See the picture below. Anybody knows, in an open area as seen in the picture, sunlight would produce shadows only along one direction. But in the picture, see the shadows are leading in various directions, which indicates that many light sources were used to take this picture, placed at different angles and distances.

PIC 8

Some doubtful facts

There was a fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule and it survived the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry! We saw how a tile created problems to Columbia. Most recently, a non protected portion about the size of a thread is creating more headaches to NASA as the crew on board Discovery is trying to fix it. So how did that old fibreglass whip antenna survive the extreme heat of atmospheric re-entry?

The moon's gravity is only 1/6 th of that on the earth. So one should be able to jump at least 10 feet high in this gravity. The maximum jump on the moon was below 20 inches in height. Even after considering the spacesuits and other stuffs around the astronauts' body, this seems too little. Remember, a man who can lift 20 kg can lift 120 kg on the moon.

Though NASA says the Van Allen belts in the outer sky may not cause radiation problems to the astronauts, one has to consider that they had to traverse 4 hours through extreme radiation dose per trip. A thin aluminium foil was used for the radiation protection! Still, they came back safely.

Even in 2003, NASA failed to complete the Columbia mission. The current Discovery venture is also a major concern as of now. Even with the advanced technologies available in all the fields, NASA couldn't complete all missions perfectly. But out of the 7 manned missions to the moon, NASA succeeded in 6. It is a whopping 85.71 % success rate. Remember, Apollo missions had more distance to cover to and fro, had to land men on the moon, stay for hours there, relaunch, go and come through intense radiation zones, and finally return safely back to the earth. And, all this happened successfully in the late 1960's and very early 1970's. Was the technology better then?

Scientists loyal to NASA asks, with the non-advanced technology of the 1960's how can one fake the photos perfectly? Then my question is with the non-advanced technology of the 1960's how could they land men on the moon and return safely back to the earth?

The maximum computer memory 256 KB! The computer on board Apollo 11 was 32 KB in memory! And computer chips were not even invented then! Still they managed to go to the moon, land and return safely!

The most interesting point

This seems to be the most interesting point. Taking all the Apollo manned-missions into account, we have a sum of 5771 photographs in all. The aggregate time all the manned-Apollo missions amounts to 4834 minutes on the moon. Here are the counts. This is a time and Motion study conducted and copyrighted by critic and Aulis editor Jack White. I am producing some facts from the study here, for a non-profitable, non-commercial, awareness purpose.

There were two Hasselblad cameras on board in each mission. The camers were not automatic. So everytime, the astronauts had to load the film, adjust settings, focus and then shoot. The most important fact to keep in mind that the two cameras were seldom used simultaneously. On almost all the occassions, one man was taking the picture of the other at work. So, the time would not effectively double.

Apollo 15..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

Apollo 16..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)

If nothing but photography alone was done, then also, even a professional photographer cannot take this many pictures in this much time!

Some History

The former USSR were the first to send a rocket to the outer space, to send a man to the space, to send a woman to the space, to send an animal to the space, to launch a satellite, to take pictures of the other side of the moon etc. America were obviously disappointed at this. So, they wanted to make something afresh. In 1962, the then US President John F Kennedy declared that America would send man to the moon by the end of the sixties. Having not reached anywhere in this regard, it can be assumed that America faked the moon landings. Isn't so obvious that man didn't have enough technology in the 1960's to go to the moon and return safely?

All pictures are copyrighted either by NASA or by Aulis. Some facts are excerpts from the studies of Bart Sibrel, Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene, Jack White, David Percy and Dave Cosnette. These are used for a non-profitable, non-commercial and awareness purpose. Thanks to all of them.

31
comments:

just a jester
said...

jester is back....After the space race was won by america NASA's budget wat cut-down and so they had to go for a re-usable space craft--the space shuttle.the success rate of the space shuttle is better than tht of the apollo missions with only 2 failures Columbia and Challenger a number of missions.success rate is more than 90percent.lets consider that the Americans did not go to the moon. And the astronauts were recovered from the ocean after the so-called mission. if there was no mission it means they have to be dropped off by some plane in the ocean only to be picked up later by the US navy.In the height of cold war such a drop off could easily have been detected by the soviets and they would be the first to blow the whistle. I am not an expert in computers so i dont know abt the computer memory argument.but the appollo thirteen crew used rudimentary navigation techniques to come back to earth after an explosion in their craft made them go on almost zero power and in freezing temperatures.and the jump theory also doesnt make sense because the astronauts dint go to the moon to jump.they were just moving about.and more importantly why did america have to "fake" so many moon missions. The russians had stopped looking at the moon six months before Armstrong's moon landing.

just a jester said...After the space race was won by america NASA's budget wat cut-down and so they had to go for a re-usable space craft--the space shuttle.the success rate of the space shuttle is better than tht of the apollo missions with only 2 failures Columbia and Challenger a number of missions.success rate is more than 90percent.==Yes, they had to go for a reusable spacecraft and new rockets. For that they disposed of the Saturn 5 rocket used for the Apollo missions. The new versions of rockets immediately followed it were not as capable as the former, why? Will we dispose of a colour TV set and go for a black and white one? Will we dispose of a computer and go for a calculator instead? These are questions that need to be answered. But, as always, an agency like NASA can find 'technical reasons' for all these. Who will question?

just a jester said...the success rate of the space shuttle is better than tht of the apollo missions with only 2 failures Columbia and Challenger a number of missions.success rate is more than 90percent==I haven't said, it is not possible to gain such a success rate. The answer is there in your question itself. Challenger and Columbia were missions conducted a long time after the successful Apollo missions. The distance to the moon which was covered during the Apollo missions were very much greater than the distance Columbia covered. The difficulties Apollo had to face in all areas including radiation were far greater than that for Columbia. Columbia never needed to land man and relaunch. But it had to fail eventually. The same problem causes concern for Discovery. Columbia failed in 2003 and Apollo succeeded with 86% 31 years back. So, the technology should have been better for Columbia, but it wasn't to be, at least from the final result when compared with that of Apollo. With all the advanced technologies, high speed computers, security alarms, monitoring facilities and intense backstage operations for two years; NASA failed and created the very same mistake with Discovery, in 2005, whatever its plight may be. No mistake apart from the failure of Apollo 13 (crew were safe though) repeated with the other missions. We have to bear in mind that advanced technologies were in its infancy in the sixties and seventies. It was during that period, that Apollo achieved an 86% success rate; and that too in just 3 years. Don't you feel something fishy with the numbers?

just a jester said...lets consider that the Americans did not go to the moon. And the astronauts were recovered from the ocean after the so-called mission. if there was no mission it means they have to be dropped off by some plane in the ocean only to be picked up later by the US navy.In the height of cold war such a drop off could easily have been detected by the soviets and they would be the first to blow the whistle.==The cold war was in existence from the late 1940's and it was at its prime in the fifties. Are you talking about spy satellites that could have detected such a drop off? Think about the spy facilities then we had. See, even in the second half of the 1990's India could trouble and mislead all the spy satellites including those of America, when we tested the Atom Bomb at Pokhran. Nobody detected it. What can you say about that? If you are saying that the spies of the USSR could have gained and leaked the information from the USSR itself, then the reverse of this should also have happened. That is -- America should also have blown the same whistle against the USSR. I will make it clear. The cold war was virulent in the fifties. We all have studied that Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin was the first man to reach the outer space. But in fact, it was'nt Gagarin who achived this feat! This is a fact that came out only a few years back. Accordingly, spacecraft with pilots at the controls were launched from the Kapustin Yar cosmodrome in the Astrakhan region in 1957, 1958 and 1959. Alexis Ledovsky in 1957, reached a height of 200 miles, but he died. Considering that the outer space starts after about 60 miles from the surface of the earth and that Gagarin reached a height of only 187 miles and that too in 1961, the honour must have gone to Ledovsky; but it didn't. Following your presumption, the American spies should have been aware of this and should have blown the whistle. Please keep in mind that two more cosmonauts, Serentyi Shiborin in February 1958 and Andrei Mitkov in January 1959 also died in their attempts, America should have known this. What about this?

just a jester said...and the jump theory also doesnt make sense because the astronauts dint go to the moon to jump.they were just moving about.==I suspect you might not have seen enough footages of the actions of the Apollo crew on the moon surface. There are footages with me that shows evidently the attempted jumpings of the crew in the lower gravity. But they weren't able to clear at least two feet. That is; they went to the moon, also to check the lower gravity situation there. Do you know, Alan Bartlett Shepard Jr., the commander of the Apollo 14 mission even played the game of golf on the moon! Did they go to the moon to play golf?

just a jester said...and more importantly why did america have to "fake" so many moon missions. The russians had stopped looking at the moon six months before Armstrong's moon landing.==As you said earlier, and I wrote in the main post; the cold war was intense between Russia and America during that period. Both wanted to prove their supremacy in all the fields including space. Russians beat Americans in all the areas of space exploration by sending a rocket to the outer space, sending a man to the space, sending a woman to the space, sending an animal to the space, launching a satellite, taking pictures of the other side of the moon etc. America were obviously disappointed at this. So, they wanted to make something new. It was in 1962 (and not just six months before the Apollo mission), that the then US President John F Kennedy declared that America would send man to the moon by the end of the sixties. Having not reached anywhere in this assignment, they might have faked the moon landings. Remember, it was in July 1969 (just 5 months before the sixties expire) that America put man on the moon. So there is apparently no point in asking the above question Jester......

just a jester said... and one more thing arent there 2 natural light sources on the moon --the sun and the earth.==Of course, who said not? I have clearly stated it in the main post. Kindly re-check (just before the heading 'Anomalies'). Look at picture 8. Shadows are pointing in at least two entirely different directions. If you consider the two light sources, the earth and the sun, it should have created two shadows for each object (Evident from the day/night cricket matches, where each player on the ground has as many shadows as the number of floodlits). If that was the case on the moon, there should have been two shadows for the astronaut in the picture. But only a single and well defined shadow is seen. This is also the case with the other objects seen in that picture. If there were two shadows for each object, nobody would have suspected the fidelity of the pictures. Since there is only one shadow per object, it is apparent that NASA airbrushed it. Tell me, why should they do it? In the case of artificial light sources also, there should have been more shadows per object. Therefore it is evident that in either case, there was airbrushing. Why should they do it?

One more; I am not sure about the faithfulness of the following matter -- It is alleged that the pictures of 'men on the moon' were taken in a studio set created at 'Area 51' in the Nevada desert. As far as I know, NASA hasn't at least denied this.

its not necessary that two light sources need to produce two shadows...if one source is much brighter than the other the shadow of the weaker source cant be seen.

and many of the spAce shuttles have performed many complex tasks like repairing the Hubble telescope and carrying parts and attaching them to the ISS.These were tasks as delicate and complex as the moon missions. The Saturn V rocket were big enough but they were built for the purpose of getting the appollo modules on to the moon.When Nasa scrapped the moon programme they dint have the need for such a huge rocket.its not a case of colour and BW Tv sets but more a case of will someone burst a nuclear bomb at a local fireworks display to entertain the crowds.So in missions which didnt need to go the 385000 kms a smaller rocket would do.The distance to the moon would sound huge but as i said if the Appollo thirteen crew could return to the earth by rudimentary navigation techiniques and on little power going to the moon on a fully fit Appollo is possible and the Saturn v rockets never took them to the moon The momentum was created by slingshooting around the earth and landing and relaunching from the moon is much much less difficult because there is no atmosphere to deal with while on entry and would require much less fuel while blasting off

they took golf to spce becuase they could see the golf ball travel a lot of distance and i am not convinced about the fact that they were purposefully jumping not one picture or video i have seen has them bending their knees in order to jump...and my point is why did the americans have to fake so many appollo missions when russians were not even thinking of going to the moon..one would have sufficed..and if i were in Nasa & i were to make the decision of faking i would have faked a mars landing becuase Russians were already capable of reaching the moon albeit with an unmanned craft but they would not be able to reach mars in reality for quite some time.

Watch the programme Space:close encounters on National geographic its quite interesting

just a jester said...its not necessary that two light sources need to produce two shadows...if one source is much brighter than the other the shadow of the weaker source cant be seen.==You are getting into more trouble with your own statements and lack of observation. I pretty much agree with you that it is not necessary that two light sources need to produce two shadows and if one source is much brighter than the other, the shadow of the weaker source can't be seen. This is a statement that itself will force you to retract it. Here is the explanation.Consider the above situation with a brighter source and a weaker one and only the brighter one producing shadows. Take a look at the picture 8 again. What do you see? If the light came from the same source (the brighter one) then it should have produced shadows in the same direction. There are no tall buildings or structures on the moon to change this view. Considering the realities that the ground is almost flat and that the astronaut is not far from the rocks, all shadows should have pointed in the same direction. But is it what we see?

just a jester said...its not a case of colour and BW Tv sets but more a case of will someone burst a nuclear bomb at a local fireworks display to entertain the crowds==Okay agreed. But you have to answer this. Will we dispose of all the nuclear bombs in our possession, simply because the next item on the list is a local fireworks where simple crackers would do the job? We should have kept it and needed to build a new one with lesser power.

just a jester said...The Saturn V rocket were big enough but they were built for the purpose of getting the appollo modules on to the moon.When Nasa scrapped the moon programme they dint have the need for such a huge rocket.==You were wrong in providing the actual data. In fact the newer space shuttle weighs 3/4 heavier than the Saturn 5 Rocket, puts only 1/6th of cargo weight into orbit and costs 3 times as much to launch. Why dispose of the Saturn 5 that can outperform the shuttle? Also, the Shuttle was first flown 2 years behind schedule.If they had used the Saturn 5 instead of the shuttle to make the Space Station, it would have been well completed by the time the Shuttle was first launched in 1981. They could have had the first launch of the shuttle 5 years before it was first launched and saved the American taxpayer 20 billion dollars.All of the blueprints of the Lunar Module and the Moon Buggy also were destroyed; why? Keep this in mind; the Lunar Module was never tested successfully on the earth. But it returned an 86% success rate. If it was never tested successfully, who sanctioned it to go to the moon? In any case, because the mission was a success and that the LM was never tested successfully; we MUST have kept the blueprints as a big time reference.Also, NASA have said that all of the discoveries and actions on the moon could not be disclosed. Why? It was not of any military importance, it was no case of terrorism or security concerns. It was just a study. Why should they keep something secret?

just a jester said...the Appollo thirteen crew could return to the earth by rudimentary navigation techiniques==From a NASA website, I came to know that during the Apollo 13 mission, the power fans were turned on within the tank for the third "cryo-stir" of the mission, a procedure to stir the oxygen slush inside the tank which would tend to stratify. The exposed fan wires shorted and the teflon insulation caught fire in the pure oxygen environment. This fire rapidly heated and increased the pressure of the oxygen inside the tank, and may have spread along the wires to the electrical conduit in the side of the tank, which weakened and ruptured under the pressure, causing the no. 2 oxygen tank to explode. This damaged the no. 1 tank and parts of the interior of the service module and blew off the bay no. 4 cover. All this happened 56 hours into the mission, at about 03:06 UT on 14 April 1970 (10:06 PM, April 13 EST). Still the crew managed to return safely using rudimentary navigation techiniques! AND....those on board Columbia couldn't save themselves. Seems odd.........

just a jester said...landing and relaunching from the moon is much much less difficult because there is no atmosphere to deal with while on entry and would require much less fuel while blasting off==If it were rather easy to land on the moon and relaunch, then why did the Russians say it was impossible to perform this. As we all know, at that time the Russians techniques were far superior to those of the Americans. We shouldn't argue that the Russians said this because they coudn't achieve this feat first. They were the first in many fields and they should have been capable of doing this first.Also, it is not that easy to land man on the moon and relaunch as you would imagine. In The Ride report, a report headed by Sally Ride, a former astronaut, an estimation was made on how long it would take to make a similar trip to the Moon today. If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they could land men on the Moon by 2010! In 1999. Douglas Cook, Director of the Exploration Office at Houston's Johnson Space Centre calculated that Man could go back to the Moon within 100 years! Interesting; NASA managed to land man on the moon and return safely just 7 or 8 years after Kennedy said they would do it. That too, with a technology in its infancy! They had to perform it before the sixties expired!

just a jester said... they took golf to spce becuase they could see the golf ball travel a lot of distance==I wasn't laughing at their playing golf on the moon. Instead, I was just telling you, they attempted many things on the moon. Playing golf was one among them. Does it mean that they went to the moon to play golf? Nope. Likewise jumping in lesser gravity was also a task they had to do on the moon.

just a jester said...i am not convinced about the fact that they were purposefully jumping not one picture or video i have seen has them bending their knees in order to jump...==Try to get some footages from the Apollo 16 mission. There are evidences of jump satules to the American flag.Can't you jump without bending your knees? In any case, please read on. In all the missions, especially during the flag erection process, you can see clearly that the astronauts are bending their kness when moving about. NASA has also given an official explanation that the astronauts are free to move about even in their pressurised spacesuits. So, there is just nothing in putting that question.

just a jester said...why did the americans have to fake so many appollo missions when russians were not even thinking of going to the moon==Even some NASA scientists have pubically disclosed that they were desperate with the achievements of the Russians and that they needed to outclass them in this matter. Need more explanation?

just a jester said...if i were in Nasa & i were to make the decision of faking i would have faked a mars landing becuase Russians were already capable of reaching the moon albeit with an unmanned craft but they would not be able to reach mars in reality for quite some time.==If you are talking about a fanciful situation back in 1969; well, the answer to 'why they took the case with the moon' is very simple. They were so obsessed with the moon than mars at that time!If you are talking about the present; I don't think it is that easy to deceive other nations now, because virtually all the nations have their own satellites and spy eyes. It might be possible to deceive them all, but certainly not probable.

just a jester said...albeit with an unmanned craft ==Yes. The Russians did it with an unmanned craft, and the US wanted to achieve that feat with a manned craft. Tell me, which of these would get a more relevant place in history and in the minds of the public. At least 1 out of 10 people you meet won't be able to tell you the name of the vehicle the Russians used to reach the moon. But 8 out of 10 would tell you the first man on the moon was Neil Armstrong. That exactly is the reach this mission brought the US to. It is evident from that very famous statement -- A small step for man, but a giant leap for mankind.

One more contradiction : -NASA had used the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras on all Apollo missions. These weren't automatic. They had no special lenses. The video camera they took, were fitted with night lenses that could produce the pictures more clearly. But in fact, most of the pictures taken with the Hasselblad were sharper than the videos. When asked this question, NASA answered, they used specially built XRC films for the Hasselblad and that was the reason for the brighter images. But the official supplier of films, Kodak disclosed in 1999 that the Apollo missions used the normal 160 ASA Ektachrome films. Why this difference in statements? Can't you still smell something fishy Jester?

if they were faking a moon landing they would have produced a better fake....they would have covered up the "mistakes" wont they...they are NASA for god's sake..they get millins of dollars from the us GOVT...would they use some studio lights for faking...and if they were faking they first thing they would done is close scrutiny and multiple examinations of whatever material they issued to the media and to the outside world. If they had done some analysis of the photographs couldnt they have detected it. They were faking a moon landing and wouldnt have left a stone unturned....in one line tht would be..IF NASA WERE FAKING THEY WOULD HAVE PRODUCED A BETTER FAKE..

columbia couldnt save themselves because they couldnt do anything at all...no one thought that the foam which struck it caused the damage it did....once they enter the atmosphere its like falling down...the space shuttle has only a small amount of fuel at tht point in order for small maneuvering...they couldnt have done anything at all..the appollo 13 LM orbitted the moon once and slingshot itself towards earth..the rudimentary navigation technique they used was to keep the earth visible through its triangular shaped window...

and saturn V rockets were not reusabale unlike the shuttles...the shuttle flew six missions in 2002 and 7 in 2001...

just a jester said...they are NASA for god's sake..IF NASA WERE FAKING THEY WOULD HAVE PRODUCED A BETTER FAKE..==If the people at NASA couldn't create a better fake, blame only them. Nobody is perfect. I guess you might agree with me in the fact that Sir Isaac Newton was a better scientist than anobody who ever worked for NASA. Once he put two holes on his door to allow entry to two of his cats, one bigger and the other smaller. He realised his foolishness only when his sevant invited his attention to it. Those at NASA did everything almost perfectly, but they might not have thought about the light source issues and other things. If they couldn't realise these things when they manipulated it; change your presumption, and call them only 'fools'. Judge by the merit and not by presumptions.And the same mighty NASA made the very same mistake with Discovery, and that too after two years of intense preparations and with all the facilities like control alarms that could indicate 'just about any problem'. Who will you blame for that; those at NASA or the shuttle itself?As far as I consider, there might have been at least a few people who didn't want to stick to this fakery. Do you know, the NASA administrator had resigned his post just before the 'successful' Apollo missions. ames B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA on July 1, 1972. Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA in June 1972. Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA in February 1976. Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977. Why should they resign from a very successful mission? If you come up with arguments, there are so many others who didn't resign, and there might have been some other problems with these people etc, well Jester, I am afraid, you are running away from the facts. Judge from the examples we have and not with a presumtion 'NASA cannot make mistakes.'One more thing. During the Apollo mission, the sun was estimated at 10 degrees above the horizon and during the Apollo 12 it was at 15 degrees. So naturally, the shadows should have been shorter in length. But it wasn't, as seen from the photographs. How on earth could have NASA thought about something like this, if they were faking it all?Gus Grissom who worked in the Apollo missions with Mercury 7, once held an extra-ordinary press conference and said that they were many many years from a manned voyage to the moon landing. If memory serves me well, this was held in 1967. He used to tell his wife and friends that he might be the first man to die during this mission. Indeed, he was the first. He died from an oxygen exposure inside his module. All know, such an exposure of pure oxygen inside the capsule is fatal, evident from the said story of Apollo 13. What is the result if any probe was conducted into this. You have to consider one more thing. The 'civilian' venture of NASA has more investment from the military and security departments. Why?

just a jester said... ...no one thought that the foam which struck it caused the damage it did....==Borrowing your own comments to answer this -- ...they are NASA for god's sake.. Why couldn't they foresee it my dear friend?They made the same mistake for a second straight time after two years of intense devotion. If they coudn't foresee the potential danger the absence of such a protective tile could create, and they couldn't help repeating the very same mistake -- common, tell me, how could have them foreseen the shadows, light sources and all the sundries.

just a jester said...and saturn V rockets were not reusabale unlike the shuttles...the shuttle flew six missions in 2002 and 7 in 2001...==Undoubtedly, the shuttles immediately followed the Saturn were less powerful. Tell me, even if they need only less-powered vehicles, why should they dispose of the previous ones. I already gave you the advantages of the Saturn over the shuttles, apart from the point reusable, which I agree. But there is a problem with the data you provided, again. Do you think the shuttles flown in 2001 and 2002 were the same versions once they were built? There were continuous modifications done to these. There are many advanced add-on features mixed with the older shuttle to make it state-of-the-art. Consider the capacity of the vehicles immediately followed the Saturn. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned crafts with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.The success rate is only 28%. I am not counting the newer versions as the technologies used in Saturn are obsolete when compared with the latest versions. Match the about rate with the untested 86% of Apollo. How do you feel now? Still searching the NASA archives to help them? Common, accept the truth and call a spade a spade, a leaf a leaf and a cheat a cheat.

just a jester said...If they had done some analysis of the photographs couldnt they have detected it==Jester, please keep this in mind. I am not an ardent believer that man didn't go to the moon. (Read how the topic starts) But there are some anomalies in the facts I have mentioned here. I am not a complete believer of all the fake hoax theories. (You will get to know about it if you read my mail to NASA, seen on the same page) If you go to any 'official' Apollo hoax site or 'UFO' site, then they could deceive you with their own faked photos. These are facts, which I filtered out from many sites. I am not at all believing in the flag waving story, film exposure story, stars can't be seen story, moisture to create footprints story and the likes. The important points are the count of photos in so little time, the technology, the disposal of the crafts, surrounding mysteries, light sources, 8 yeras for the first moonlanding, jumping on the moon, and the film type dispute. Aren't those worth a dispute?These are all just doubts. NASA is the one responsible to answer this. But they aren't keen on this. So, naturally one can suspect. Afterall, it is a hunch that can lead to the unfolding of some mystery. Kindly note that, I just don't want to prove that man didn't go to the moon. But it can be suspected from these anomalies. They are the ones to come up with pure explanations and answer my doubts. You can see, I have used more ifs and buts, might, etc types of words other than the certainiy statements. "If this is so, Then why can't this be the same" is my approach. These are all questions and doubts. But in the hoax sites and other UFO sites, they have stated clearly that man never went to the moon.See, the heading itself -- "NASA's Apollo Moon Program - A Hoax?" It is a question and not a statement, isn't it?

yes you have not said "man did not go to the moon."Its alright questioning the facts also but he fact remains tht most of these so-called mistakes are so elementary that a local crook who tries to cover up will do a better job. So if Nasa did a "cover-up" they would have pushed all the dirt under the carpet where noone could see it even if they were to examine it really closely.Space Exploration is a field which interests me a lot and i dont want to believe that man's greatest achievement in SE is a hoax.

just a jester said...So if Nasa did a "cover-up" they would have pushed all the dirt under the carpet==This is contradictory to the fact we saw with Discovery. My friend, they were aware of the facts that led to the Columbia mistake, still they couldn't help but repeat the same mayhem with Discovery. You know, the detachment of the thermal tiles is never a problem that can be termed as 'accidental'. These are specially made and very carefully fitted. There are routine examinations also as to whether they are in proper shape and condition. It would have been okay, if it detached away due to some other problems like interactions with the air, producing extra-ordinary amounts of heat and all that (it is also very tough to occur!); but what actually happened was that it detached only seconds into the mission. If that is not carelessness of lack of observation, then what is it? We have to bear in mind that, for the moment, they have grounded their space shuttle ventures. It is the mighty NASA, but they are not that mighty either....